If I lived in a particularly violent neighborhood (I'd move!) or civil unrest were increasing, I might rethink. But at this point I believe the now-vanished FBI stats saying that a gun kept in the home "for protection" is several times (ca 5, AIR?) more likely to kill or seriously injure a family member than an intruder. Thus, no standard gun. No, mace is not as good (for the reasons I mentioned myself), but until the taser comes out, it's the best substitute, unless you think nothing is better than an inefficient defense. The taser should almost as effective as a gun at the range one's likely to be shooting under such circumstances, and the danger of a severe/lethal accident (or intentional misuse against a family member, as in the case that precipitated this discussion) is much reduced, so the odds should much favor true defensive use over the unfortunate alternatives, unlike Mark G's .44.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!